Premier to WA Footy Commission: 'Be happy with what you've been given'

This makes me nastlily happy:

Hannah Barry

WA Premier Mark McGowan has insisted the West Australian Football Commission will not get "a dollar more" than they have been offered under their existing 10-year deal with the state government.

The WAFC has pushed for a 50-year funding deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars in recent months, despite the Labor Government honouring a 10-year commitment made by the former Barnett Government.

The existing deal is worth over $10 million a year, which the WAFC has previously argued only just covers their operational costs after they missed the chance to run football at Perth Stadium.

The Commission and the State Government have been in a stand-off for almost three years, and reportedly reached an "in principle" deal in June – however the Premier said the government and the commission had still failed to reach a deal on Sunday morning.

"They're not getting any more than what is on the table," he said.

"Our commitment is $100 million over the next ten years for football to play at the stadium and for the football commission to support their activities.

"There won't be a dollar more. We can't afford anymore. In fact, I think the offer that was put on the table by the former government that we've agreed to continue with, I think it's far too generous.

By submitting your email you are agreeing to Fairfax Media's terms and conditions and privacy policy .
"But it's there, we want to get the issue resolved and we want to get both football teams signed up to play at the new stadium and we want to make sure the football commission can continue to operate.

"But if they don't agree to sign, well then that's their call. But they're not getting a dollar more."

Reaching an agreement with the State Government about playing games at the new Perth Stadium has proven to be a sore spot for the Commission, as they battle to secure more funding to implement a new host of grassroots programs and to surrender their existing 70-year lease at Subiaco Oval.

While Thursday's state budget outlined how the government would continue to support football in WA, the AFL's move to Perth Stadium has also meant a relocation for the WAFC - and it has still not been made clear who would pay for the move.

The WAFC's refusal to sign off on the deal also has the potential to impact the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers from playing at the stadium, as the Commission holds both the teams' licences.

However, Mr McGowan said the WAFC should be "grateful" for what they have been offered.

"They should sign the deal, accept that they've been given a one in a thousand year opportunity and be happy. My advice to the AFL is: Be happy with what you've been given," he said.

"The WA public has given you a golden opportunity and be grateful. That's my advice to the AFL. But they're not getting any more money."

WAFC chief executive officer Gavin Taylor told The Sunday Times the commission was "not seeking a government handout" and "all football parties must be collectively satisfied to finalise the deal".

"We are seeking a sustainable share of the football-generated revenues from the stadium to assist in funding grassroots football," he said.

so they get to keep ticket receipts over and above the hire of the stadium AND $10 Million dollars a year, but they don't think they have a share of the "Football generated revenues from the stadium"??????

so they get to keep ticket receipts over and above the hire of the stadium AND $10 Million dollars a year, but they don't think they have a share of the "Football generated revenues from the stadium"??????

Do these guys run the aru?

I don't think they get to keep ticket sales this time as they won't run the stadium unlike Subiaco and they're just causing problems because they are still unhappy about that. For what is the biggest sporting code in the state with two of the most profitable clubs in the league they always seem to be short on money so yeah, kinda like the ARU.

I don't think they get to keep ticket sales this time as they won't run the stadium unlike Subiaco and they're just causing problems because they are still unhappy about that. For what is the biggest sporting code in the state with two of the most profitable clubs in the league they always seem to be short on money so yeah, kinda like the ARU.

Wouldn't that be unusual? I would think that most stadium hire arrangements involve some sort of contract where they (either) pay for the use of the stadium facility and keep the ticket receipts (or) play for free (or sometimes even get paid to play there) and the stadium keeps a percentage of the ticket sales.

Paying to play and not keeping any of the revenue would be a first IMHO.